That is not true. Corn Ethanol is not the best source of Ethanol but it's still Energy Positive.

I agree Corn is not the best crop for producing ethanol. But it can be used as a stepping stone since it's readily available here.

I'm guessing at some point Ethanol producing firms will seriously investigate other crops and challenge the Corn lobby. But none of this will happen until Ethanol becomes a bigger part of our fuel consumption.

when they put diesel in their gas engines.

Not every change deserves a corporate conspiracy theory. The fuel you use has never been just gas. There's always been many various additives, octane, levels, season mixes, etc.

High ethanol mixes have been available in many countries without a major collapse in infrastructure. I'm pretty sure we'll do alright as well.

First, we are only currently using fossil fuel based products to grow corn. That can easily change, especially with the advances we're seeing with green energy.

Secondly what research indicates that growing corn for energy on a wide scale would use more energy than it produces? There are many studies that conclude ethanol from corn is Energy Positive.

Safeguards can obviously be taken if needed. For instance, surprisingly it's also bad for the car to put diesel in your gas engine. Yet just about every station sell both types of fuel. Personally, I'm looking forward to E25, which has been used in Brazil since the late seventies and they seem to be doing ok with that decision.

It's suggested. As you found, you can type a lesser amount in the textbox. Where's the issue?

And that's just what they'll do

Plugin cars are making a lot more sense.

Lots of critics argue plugins don't make economic sense. But looking at the long game ( next few decades ), getting plugins to the point where economies of scale reduces their price is one of the best solutions to this energy problem.

there's a sleazy client

Apple's competitors already know what drives IPhone/IPad sales. Yes, Apple's numbers are more authoritative, but 3rd party survey firms provide decent results. Why would consumer opinion be a secret? Especially to firms with billions to gain or lose on their attitudes.

Apple is arguing that their documents are basically trade secrets and hence should be protected by/from the court. I imagine that $600M marketing figure is "Movie studio finance". You know when a studio gets sued over a $500M blockbuster, that movie's reported on the books as a loss. Apple has to show that they've put a lot of money in building their market position. The more they show, the more likely they'll get higher damages. The lawyers aren't going to perjure themselves, but they will be creative as to what falls under 'Marketing'.

Samsung, I'm guessing, will argue that to defend themselves they'll need more specifics relating to how Apple spent all that marketing money. I'm also guessing they'll take a swipe at actual trade secrets whilst they're at it.

Personally, I don't think Apple should have it's cake and eat it to. If you're going to ask for $2B+ in damages, partly substantiated by the $600M you spent then you should have to show how that money was spent ( within reason ). But It'll be interesting how Koh decides this.

They're not calling this case 'Samsung vs. Koh' for nothing.

Your own wikipedia link Samsung_SGH-F700 states that Samsung got a design patent for the F700 in December, 2006. Before the announcement of the iPhone.

Anyone quoting him or linking to his blog is demonstrating their ignorance of who he is and what he represents.

That or maybe they simply disagree with you on the subject of his bias.

Not everyone that disagrees with you is dishonest or bought and paid for.

Some opinions I agree with, some I don't. I just factor those as someone elses opinion. Who knows, I could be wrong. It's known to happen.

Because Florian is one of the best and most prolific law bloggers on the web today. I read his site just about every day and I haven't seen a pro Microsoft slant as yet.

The article's title isn't correct. Google is really arguing that most patents should be treated like SEPs so it's harder to get injunctions. As the patent war heated up Google bought Motorola largely to quickly built it's defensive patent portfolio. A strategy that has largely worked except Motorola has a lot of SEPs.

So now Apple is suing Google and its hardware partners like crazy all over the world, but they're coming back with SEPs in the counter suites. HTC took Apple to court in retaliation using 2 SEPs it got from HP, IIRC. Google is also beginning to play a more aggressive role defending its hardware partners. Google is even beginning to ask the courts to name them as defendants even though they weren't sued. And guess what type of patents they're bringing to the party?

Motorola recently announced that it was leaving long standing patent agreements with Qualcomm. Guess with litigious company relies on Qualcomm for protection against SEPs?

Now add the fact that the US government is actively re-evaluating how litigation around SEPs are handled ( there are hearings going on right now ), and you can see why Google is saying what they are.

Google largely wants to be able to use its SEPs defensively in a fight they really didn't start. But of course, once that cat is out the bag and fast forward a decade when Google maybe on the ropes, then it's likely we would see SEPs used more agressively. '

The other solution is to not loosen restrictions on SEPs but to go the other route. Make it harder to get injunctions using non-SEPs by treating them like SEPs. Personally, I believe that's the way to go. Currently Apple has an injunction on the import of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 over a flimsy design patent. Samsung can't just pay a reasonable fee, they have been banned from importing the product at all. Even if these flimsy patents are not tossed out of court, they should not be used to outright ban products, but competitors should be allowed to license them on a FRAND basis.

Novell made a killing and and was an industry powerhouse for decades. Much of their wealth came from making the Microsoft environment easier to use.

Also many of Microsoft's biggest competitors started of by being compatible with Microsoft. Google providing Exchange protocol services, Office file format compatibility, same with Apple, OpenOffice, etc. And that hasn't worked out too bad for them.